Can You Tell When the Drug Czar Is Joking?

Last week drug czar Gil Kerlikowske, who used to be the chief of police in Seattle, returned there for an addiction conference and met with the editorial board of The Seattle Times. Since the request for the meeting came two days after the paper editorialized in favor of marijuana legalization, board members (and their sympathizers) expected something like a scolding. But editorial writer Bruce Ramsey reports that Kerlikowske "was cordial and almost laid-back." When asked about marijuana, "he did disagree with us, but so gently that some of the attendees wondered why he had come at all." The meeting attracted 25 or so protesters who urged Kerlikowske to "get with the Times."

When Ramsey asked Kerlikowske whether the war on drugs (which his boss, Barack Obama, once called an "utter failure") has been a success, he "did a double-take":

Didn't I know that one of his first acts as Drug Czar was to declare the War on Drugs over? Hadn't I seen that?

No. I thought the War on Drugs was still on.

"The War on Drugs is over," he said. "We've stopped looking at it as a criminal justice issue alone."

Was Kerlikowske kidding? It's hard to tell. Here is how Seattle Times reporter Jonathan Martin, who was at the meeting too, describes the exchange:

He also said President Obama has shifted the focus on drug policy by describing it as a public-health problem. The administration has asked for increased drug-treatment funding, while money for interdiction is stagnant, Kerlikowske said.

He noted he officially called an end to the "war on drugs" after taking office two years ago. "I don't know how you missed that," he joked.

What does it say about the Obama administration's drug policy that people can't tell whether the man ostensibly in charge of coordinating it is joking when he attaches so much significance to a half-hearted change in terminology?

For more on the alleged medicalization of the war on drugs, start here. The pot legalization bill endorsed by the Times is here. Unfortunately, it gives the state a monopoly on marijuana, which would be sold alongside distilled spirits in state stores.

[Thanks to Paul in Seattle for the tip.]

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • rather||

    Kerlikowske "was cordial and almost laid-back." When asked about marijuana

    I hope they didn't screw his high with all the negative shit

  • Doktor Zombie||

    Yeah, they should have added that he was amiable and "giggly", and he asked if anyone had some Cool Ranch Doritos or king-sized bag of Funyuns.

  • rather||

    Cheetohs

  • Contemplationist||

    Is it time we finally heed Dr. Szasz and stop congratulating ourselves for this move to the "treatment model"? The treatment model is drug war by liberals, nothing less. It's time to be fully vocal about complete de-control of all "controlled" substances. Repeal the Controlled Substances Act.

  • ||

    Drug rehab is a scam. Incarceration a proven failure.

    Drug abuse by some citizens is something a free society just has to live with.

  • LarryA||

    I can tell the drug czar is a joke. Is that close enough?

  • Ironic||

    The War on Drugs is over in the same way the War in Iraq is over.

  • Doktor Zombie||

    We can't stop the war in Eurasia. There's too much money in it.

  • ||

    Stunning. When will this national nightmare end?

  • Gerald Ford||

    Our long national nightmare is over.

  • ||

    Your son smoked pot.

  • Whitney||

    mine was photographed snorting coke :-(

  • ola||

    And is/was a shitty actor

  • Virginia||

    "We've stopped looking at it as a criminal justice issue alone."

    Ol' Gil went on to explain that by we he meant him and his dog and that the DEA would still be treating it as solely a criminal justice issue.

  • ||

    Gil is a first rate dickhead. So glad he's not Seattle's police chief any more.

  • rather||

    LOL, I bet you know them all by name

  • ||

    "Put in a good word for ol’ Gil now, won’t ya?"

    Kerlikowske has a similar air of hangdoggedness.

  • ||

    What a lying sack of crap he is. As long as its viewed as a criminal justice problem, at all, the WOD is on.

    And what's this bullshit about how its now a public health problem? First, recreational drug use is no more a public health problem than recreational water skiing. Second, since when do you address a public health problem by locking people up?

  • rather||

  • Paul||

    Of course as long as marijuan remains illegal it is a criminal justice problem, Mr. Kerlikowske.

    And the public health angle? Sure they also want to view it as a public health problem, because the government is soon to have a monopoly on that, too.

  • Robert||

    What does it say about the Obama administration's drug policy that people can't tell whether the man ostensibly in charge of coordinating it is joking when he attaches so much significance to a half-hearted change in terminology?


    It says that the czar is operating in a democracy of hundreds of millions. Seriously, this phenomenon where half hearted changes in terminology are a big deal, is no big deal, it's commonplace. You can never be sure whether it's the tip of an iceberg of policy, or just a little piece of ice that will soon melt.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    When it comes to czars, the Obama Administration believes in quantity over quality.

  • Premier Lenin||

    There's a certain quality to quantity.

  • ||

    Unfortunately, it gives the state a monopoly on marijuana, which would be sold alongside distilled spirits in state stores.

    Yeah in Washington state we have to buy Liquor in a state store...of course they do not control the quantity you buy and whole sellers can sell directly to Bars...and of course we do have bars in Washington state.

    So yes it is unfortunate. But in comparison to throwing millions at the drug war and throwing 100s if not 1000s of people's lives down the toilet in my states prison system that "unfortunate" part would actually be a fucking miracle.

    One question though....does the bill allow people grow it for their own personal use?

    If so I think the state sales part would be a mute point. My understanding is that pot is easier to grow then tomatoes.

  • ||

    No. It isn't.

    And even if it were, people still buy fucking tomatoes.

  • ChicagoSucks||

    For some reason I just pictured dipping a jalapeno popper into a small container of marijuana sauce.

  • Robert||

    Wouldn't you pay just to see a tomato fucking, let alone own one?

  • Hugh Akston||

    If so I think the state sales part would be a mute point.

    That's probably why you never hear it.

  • Jesse Jackson||

    the point is moot!

  • SIV||

    My understanding is that pot is easier to grow then tomatoes.

    Yes it is easier. It is more difficult to grow the best marijuana than very good tomatoes. If you could by nursery-started marijuana plants down at the garden center it would be about the same.

    And even if it were, people still buy fucking tomatoes.

    Tomatoes are best enjoyed fresh.

  • l0b0t||

    The growing is not the difficult part. Drying and curing is where many amateur growers turn all their time and effort into naught. If done improperly, one's harvest tastes like hay or freshly mowed lawn.

  • ||

    Quick, someone tell Mexico that the War on Drugs is over.

  • ||

    "[M]oney for interdiction is stagnant . . . ."
    It's official.
    It's a quagmire.

  • ||

    He noted he officially called an end to the "war on drugs" after taking office two years ago. "I don't know how you missed that," he joked.

    Helicopter in to Juarez and hang a "Mission Accomplished" sign on the city hall. That ought to convince everyone.

    (It would also get a lot of laughs.)

  • Paul||

    One of these days libertarians are gonna get tired of the crumbs these officials keep throwing at us.

  • ||

    Seattle Times Cannabis Reform Protests send US Drug Czar down the rabbit hole!!!

    4 March, 2011, Seattle, WA

    US Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske sneaks around to the back door, flees from a couple of protesters after emptying his empty bag of old rhetoric on the news and meeting with Times Editors all morning!!!!!!http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/03/05/the-drug-czar-comes-to-town-and-nothing-much-happens&cb=ee11d8f3af3fe94e8a04b72cc19daed3&layoutId=PostComment&view=comments#comment-7046851

    After seeing the drug Czar's bizarre bipolar behavior Friday, its clear that the Feds Kool-Aid has run out! A Defeated man, looking more like a paranoid drug dealer than the Nations top Drug Cop, Gil exited out of an auxillary entrance after trying to put a juke move on protesters altogether. It was more embarrassing than frustrating as a peaceful OIF Veteran protester. I has trained never to never surrender, and after Gil's acquiescent talks with The Seattle Times (The whole hubub and the "coincidence" that really riled people up in the first place) he was in full retreat mode during a perceived show of force; see The Stranger @http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/02/25/white-house-requested-meeting-with-seattle-times-editorial-board-to-bully-against-pro-pot-articles

    In summation, I'll quote what Brendan Kiley of The Seattle Times said after Friday's activities."The White House's drug czar is making the case in such an empty and specious way, he might as well be arguing for legalization."

    PS: Kiro 7's Online Poll shows a whopping 86% chunk of the public for Legalizing Cannabis

    PSS I think when Washington legalizes cannabis across the board, we will become the wealthiest state in the USA"-Jeanne Black-Ferguson, Grammas forganja.org.

    Thomas Studley
    OIF Veteran
    US Army Recon (Ret.)

  • chaussures puma ||

    ououou

  • ||

    Alcohol prohibition in the US run from 1919 to 1933 - Now google 'The Great Wall Street Crash' and see when that happened!

    During alcohol prohibition, all profits went to enrich thugs and criminals. Young men died every day on inner-city streets while battling over turf. A fortune was wasted on enforcement that could have gone on education etc. On top of the budget-busting prosecution and incarceration costs, billions in taxes were lost. Finally the economy collapsed. Sound familiar?

    http://1929crash.com/

    China has recently been in negotiation with a number of countries, asking them to replace the Dollar with the Chinese Yuan as their reserve currency. This, when it happens, will remove the Federal Government's ability to keep printing cash to cover the trillions it costs to fund prohibition. It’ll mean true freedom but the transition period may well bring consequences that are far more horrific than a slasher movie. -- It never had to be this way; we should have learned our lesson from studying the mayhem that alcohol prohibition wreaked on us.

    We all have our victories and defeats as regards fear, but most of us strive not to let fear rule our hearts or our minds. Being free means being free to live and love as if death and fear had no power over us. Freedom also means that we have an ethical and moral responsibility to expose blind hate, lies and ignorance by shining eternal light, truth and love, sending such dark forces fleeing to the shadows from whence they came.

    We explore outer space with various forms of space craft, but many choose to explore inner space via nature's abundant chemistry - an infinite journey into the heart of God. Whatever, we are here to explore this glorious universe. The Prohibitionist's brand of hateful, choking pseudo-Conservatism is the antithesis of all that. Like a lion who cannot grasp that he can do more than walk in a circle the size of the cage he's recently been freed from, the prohibitionist is incapable of exploration beyond the boundaries of his own fear, prejudice and loathing. We are all free to choose how we walk our own path, but when we choose to go beyond this by supporting drug-war demagoguery, to the point of even threatening others with imprisonment and physical violence, we loose the right to expect any form of respect from the once free and prosperous society that we are helping to totally destroy.

    Thanks to prohibition we're about to lose all semblance of that once ordered, prosperous and safe society. Myself, along with many others, have been debating prohibitionists on this for many years. We have shown what destruction prohibition has wrought on all the civil institutions of this once great nation, -we've always provided facts and statistics - they, the prohibitionists, have countered with either lies, personal abuse or even serious threats of violence.

    Ending the insanity of drug prohibition by legalized regulation, respecting the rights of the responsible users and focusing on addiction as a sickness, like we do with alcohol and tobacco, may save what remains of our economy and civil institutions along with countless lives and livelihoods. Prohibition continues unabated for shameful political reasons. It cannot, and never will, reduce drug use or addiction.

    Prohibition has permanently scarred our national character as well as our individual psyches. Our national policies and cultural practices have become pervaded by the fascistic, prohibitionist mind-set which has turned our domestic police force into a bunch of paramilitary thugs who often commit extra-judicial beatings and executions while running roughshod over our rights in order to "protect us from ourselves".

    When we eventually manage to put the horrors of this toxic moronothon behind us, we'll need to engage in some very deep and honest soul-searching as to what we want to be as a nation. Many of our freedoms have been severely circumscribed or lost altogether, our economy has been trashed and our international reputation for being "free and fair" has been dragged through a putrid sewer by vicious narrow-minded drug warrior zealots who are ignorant of abstract concepts such as truth, justice and decency. We'll need to make sure that such a catastrophe is never ever repeated. This may mean that public hearings or tribunals will be held where those who have been the instigators and cheerleaders of this abomination will have to answer for their serious crimes against our once prosperous and proud nation.

    Each day you remain silent, you help to destroy the Constitution, fill the prisons with our children, and empower terrorists and criminals worldwide while wasting hundreds of billions of your own tax dollars. Prohibition bears many strong and startling similarities to Torquemada­'s inquisition­, it's supporters are servants of tyranny and hate. If you're aware of but not enraged by it's shear waste and cruel atrocities then both your heart and soul must surely be dead.

    Prohibition engendered black market profits are obscenely huge. Remove this and you remove the ability to bribe or threaten any government official or even whole governments. The argument that legalized regulation won't severely cripple organized crime is truly bizarre. Of course, the bad guys won't just disappear, but if you severely diminish their income, you also severely diminish their power. The proceeds from theft, extortion, pirated goods etc. are a drop in the ocean compared to what can be earned by selling prohibited/unregulated drugs in a black market estimated to be worth 400,000 million dollars. Without the lure and power of so much easy capital, it's also very unlikely that new criminal enterprises will ever fill the void left by those you successfully disrupt or entirely eradicate.

    Millions of fearless North Africans have recently shown us that recognizing oppression also carries the weight of responsibility to act upon and oppose that oppression. Prohibition is a vicious anti-constitutional assault on ALL American citizens by a criminally insane and dysfunctional government, which left unchallenged will end with the destruction of the entire nation.

    “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country… Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”
    – Abraham Lincoln, November 12, 1864

    "Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness] it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government…"
    - The Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

  • Cris Ericson||

    United States Marijuana Party seeks
    2012 candidates for
    President & Vice-President
    of the
    United States of America!!!

    MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION ACTIVISTS,
    YOU ARE HEREBY CALLED TO ACTION!

    PUBLIC NOTICE TO:
    STEVE KUBBY,
    DENNY LANE --- FORMER GRASSROOTS CANDIDATE
    FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
    LORETTA NALL,
    NJ WEEDMAN,
    RICHARD RAWLINGS,
    SHEREE KRIDER,
    JASON WARF --- "Overgrow the Government"
    on Facebook,
    TOM AMMIANO
    and all U.S. Citizens who
    care about
    ENDING MARIJUANA PROHIBITION
    420 Day, April 20, 2011
    and
    Million Marijuana March
    May 7, 2011
    and
    Global Marijuana March
    May 7, 2011,


    YOU ARE HEREBY CALLED TO ACTION!

    USMJP.COM
    OR
    USMJPARTY.COM
    BOTH KNOWN AS THE
    "UNITED STATES MARIJUANA PARTY"
    (NAME WITH NO TRADEMARK)
    CAN PUT A
    CANDIDATE FOR
    PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
    FOR THE
    "UNITED STATES MARIJUANA PARTY"
    ON THE
    OFFICIAL ELECTION BALLOT
    IN VERMONT 2012!

    http://www.leg.state.vt.us
    on the left click on Vermont Statutes online
    Click on Title 17 V.S.A.
    Scroll down to Chapter 49
    Subchapter III
    Independent Candidates

    IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND:

    IN THE STATE OF VERMONT,
    AN
    UN-ORGANIZED
    POLITICAL PARTY MAY APPEAR ON
    THE OFFICIAL ELECTION BALLOT
    UNDER THE RULES
    FOR INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES!

    "UNITED STATES MARIJUANA PARTY" IS AN
    UN-ORGANIZED
    POLITICAL PARTY
    AND THEREFORE MAY APPEAR ON THE OFFICIAL
    ELECTION BALLOT IN VERMONT UNDER THE
    RULES BELOW:

    NOTE: INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES MAY USE UP TO 3
    DESCRIPTIVE WORDS,
    APPEARING ON THE BALLOT AS
    "UNITED STATES MARIJUANA" PARTY !!!

    Section 2401. Applicability of subchapter
    A person may be nominated and have his or her name
    printed on the general election ballot for any office by
    filing a consent similar in form to the consent prescribed by
    section 2361 of this title and a statement of nomination with
    the secretary of state.

    Section 2402. Requisites of statement
    (a) A statement of nomination shall contain:
    (1) The name of the office for which the nomination is made;
    (2) The candidate's name and residence;
    (3) If desired, a name, or other identification
    (in not more than three words)
    "UNITED STATES MARIJUANA" --- the word "Party" is
    already on the form ---
    to be printed on the ballot following the candidate's name;
    (4) in the case of a nomination for president or vice-president of the
    United States, the name and state of residence of each candidate
    for such office, together with the name, town of residence, and
    correct mailing address of each nominee for the office of elector.
    The statement shall also be accompanied by a consent form from each
    nominee for elector. The consent form shall be similar to the
    consent form prescribed in section 2361 of this title.
    (b) To constitute a valid nomination, a statement shall contain signatures
    of voters qualified to vote in an election for the office in question, equal
    in number to at least:
    (1) For president and vice-presidential offices, 1,000.
    Signatures need not all be contained on one paper.
    (c) A statement shall state that each signer is qualified to vote in an
    election for the office in question and that the voter's residence is as set
    forth next to his name. Every statement of nomination shall include
    the certificate of the town clerk where the signers appear to be voters,
    certifying whether the persons whose names appear as signers of the
    statement are registered voters in the town. Only those names certified
    by the town clerk to be those of registered voters of the town shall count
    toward required number of signatures. (This requirement for the town
    clerk to check off the names was changed for statewide elections in 2010
    so that the Secretary of State, Elections Division had to check off the names
    to be certain they were all registered voters of Vermont in 2010.)
    (e) The secretary of state shall prescribe and furnish forms for a statement
    of nomination.

    Section 2403. Number of candidates; party names
    A statement of nomination shall contain the name of only one candidate,
    except in the case of presidential and vice-presidential candidates, who
    may be nominated by means of the same statement of nomination.
    A person shall not sign more than one statement of nomination for the same
    office. The political or other name on a statement of nomination shall be substantially
    different from the name of any organized political party. It shall also be
    substantially different from the political or other name already appearing on any
    other statement of nomination for the same office then on file with the
    same officer for the same election; if the secretary of state determines that it is not
    substantially different, the candidate named on the statement shall select a
    different political or other name, otherwise the secretary may reject the statement
    of nomination. Except in the case of presidential and vice-presidential candidates,
    the word "independent" may not be used as part of a party name; if no party is
    indicated, the word "Independent" shall be printed on the ballot, and no candidate
    appearing on the ballot as a candidate of a political party shall also appear on the
    ballot as an "Independent".

    So, do you understand? In the State of Vermont, an 'independent' candidate
    may chose up to three descriptive words and appear on the ballot as a party
    so long as it is not the name of an "organized" party.

    The "United States Marijuana" party (the word party is already on the form)
    is NOT an organized party. Therefore, any U.S. Citizen of age 35 or older may
    appear on the 2012 official election ballot in Vermont, after collecting the
    required number of petition signatures, as the "United States Marijuana" party,
    as a candiate for President and for Vice-President of the United States.

    Elections Division
    Vermont Secretary of State
    26 Terrace Street
    Montpelier, VT 05609-1101
    (802)828-2464
    FAX: 802-828-5171
    Hours: 7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. EAST COAST TIME

    The Vermont Statutes Online
    Title 17: Elections
    Chapter 49: NOMINATIONS
    17 V.S.A. § 2401. Applicability of subchapter

    § 2401. Applicability of subchapter

    A person may be nominated and have his or her name
    printed on the general election ballot for any office by
    filing a consent similar in form to the consent prescribed
    by section 2361 of this title and a statement of nomination
    with the secretary of state. In the case of a nomination
    for justice of the peace, the consent form and statement
    of nomination shall be filed with the town clerk.
    (Added 1977, No. 269 (Adj. Sess.), § 1; amended 1985, No. 196 (Adj. Sess.),
    § 8; 1995, No. 95 (Adj. Sess.), § 1.)

    The Vermont Statutes Online
    Title 17: Elections
    Chapter 49: NOMINATIONS
    17 V.S.A. § 2402. Requisites of statement

    § 2402. Requisites of statement

    (a) A statement of nomination shall contain:

    (1) The name of the office for which the nomination is made;

    (2) The candidate's name and residence;

    (3) If desired, a name, or other identification (in not more than three words)
    to be printed on the ballot following the candidate's name;

    (4) In the case of nomination for president or vice president of the United States,
    the name and state of residence of each candidate for such office,
    together with the name, town of residence, and correct mailing address
    of each nominee for the office of elector. The statement of nomination
    shall include certification by the town clerk of each town where the
    signers appear to be voters that the persons whose names appear
    as signers of the statement are registered voters in the town and
    of the total number of valid signers from the town. Only the number
    of signers certified by each town clerk shall count toward the
    required number of signatures. The statement shall also be
    accompanied by a consent form from each nominee for elector.
    The consent form shall be similar to the consent form prescribed
    in section 2361 of this title.

    (b) To constitute a valid nomination, a statement shall contain
    signatures of voters qualified to vote in an election for the
    office in question, equal in number to at least:

    (1) For presidential and vice presidential offices, 1,000;

    (2) For state and congressional offices, 500;

    (3) For county officers or state senators, 100;

    (4) For representative to the general assembly, 50;

    (5) For justice of the peace, 30 or one percent of the
    legal voters of the municipality, whichever is less.

    Signatures need not all be contained on one paper.

    (c) A statement shall state that each signer is qualified
    to vote in an election for the office in question and that
    the voter's residence is as set forth next to the voter's name.

    (d) A statement of nomination and a completed and signed
    consent form shall be filed as set forth in section 2356 of this title.
    No public official receiving nominations shall accept a petition
    unless a completed and signed consent form is filed at the same time.

    (e) The secretary of state shall prescribe and furnish forms
    for a statement of nomination. (Added 1977, No. 269 (Adj. Sess.),
    § 1; amended 1979, No. 200 (Adj. Sess.), §§ 30-32; 1985, No. 196 (Adj. Sess.),
    § 9; 1995, No. 95 (Adj. Sess.), § 2; 2001, No. 83 (Adj. Sess.),
    § 4; 2007, No. 54, § 3; 2007, No. 121 (Adj. Sess.), § 7, eff. May 6, 2008; 2009, No. 73 (Adj. Sess.),
    § 7, eff. April 7, 2010; No. 98 (Adj. Sess.), § 1, eff. May 10, 2010.)

    The Vermont Statutes Online
    Title 17: Elections
    Chapter 49: NOMINATIONS
    17 V.S.A. § 2403. Number of candidates; party names

    § 2403. Number of candidates; party names

    A statement of nomination shall contain the name of only
    one candidate, except in the case of presidential and
    vice-presidential candidates, who may be nominated
    by means of the same statement of nomination.
    A person shall not sign more than one statement
    of nomination for the same office. The political or
    other name on a statement of nomination shall be
    substantially different from the name of any organized
    political party. It shall also be substantially different from
    the political or other name already appearing on any other
    statement of nomination for the same office then on file with
    the same officer for the same election; if the secretary
    of state determines that it is not substantially different,
    the candidate named on the statement shall select a
    different political or other name, otherwise the secretary
    may reject the statement of nomination. Except in the
    case of presidential and vice-presidential candidates,
    the word "independent" may not be used as part of a party name;

    if no party is indicated, the word "Independent" shall
    be printed on the ballot, and no candidate appearing
    on the ballot as a candidate of a political party shall
    also appear on the ballot as an "Independent."
    (Added 1977, No. 269 (Adj. Sess.), § 1; amended 1979,
    No. 200 (Adj. Sess.), § 33; 1985, No. 196 (Adj. Sess.), § 10; 2001, No. 5, § 15.)

    USMJP.COM
    AND
    USMJPARTY.COM
    BOTH USING THE NAME
    "UNITED STATES MARIJUANA PARTY"
    for which there is
    no registered trade name, and is therefore
    not an "organized" political party,
    so it qualifies for the Vermont ballot
    under the above laws.

    This incredibly exciting blog comment was brought to you by none other than Ms. Cris Ericson
    879 Church Street
    Chester, Vermont 05143-9375
    (802)875-4038
    http://crisericson.com

  • ||

    Jesus said to do unto others as we would have them to do unto us. None of us would want our child thrown in jail with the sexual predators for using a little marijuana. None of us would want to see our parent's home confiscated and sold by the police for growing a couple of marijuana plants to ease the aches and pains of growing older. It's time to stop putting our own families in jail. It's time to let ordinary Americans grow a little marijuana in their own back yards, and it's nice to see our culture coming to terms with this in a more wholesome fashion. This will go a long way toward putting the criminal drug gangs out of business for good!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement